So this is where we are as a country:  It’s now “judicial activism” to rule in accordance with the Constitution, while judicial restraint gets redefined as agreeing to rubber-stamp the legislative will of Democrat super majorities, even if what they rush into law is clearly unconstitutional — and creates subjects where free citizens with unalienable rights once existed. So says our would-be tyrant, who views any rebuke to his claims

Silly conservative Justices, so busy politicizing Good Public Policy and using sophomoric hypotheticals to make “arguments” that they keep letting this “Constitution” thingy get in the way of Doing What The People Want.  Don’t these dullards realize that the remedy for what concluding legitimately what is and isn’t constitutional is the people’s ability to vote out politicians they believe went too far?  Pearlstein, WaPO: Judging from their blatantly partisan bleating

Gulp. (thanks to Thomas D)

From JHo, via email: “Interesting use of “neoliberal”, although this piece is couched in technical, even passive language.  I’ve been ranting about this for years. Ben Bernanke was an academic, not a banker but sufficiently brainwashed in neoliberal, pro-Wall Street ideology to be trusted by the banks to flood the economy with credit in an attempt to re-inflate the bubble economy so as to pull real estate prices out of

But so what? Obama is gaining ground among women voters and overtaking Romney in swing states. And here you thought issues and performance mattered. Silly, politically-engaged Hobbits. If substance mattered even near as much as “polish,” predictability, hair, or a willingness to keep to the managed script written for you by the status quo political class, you think the GOP Party establishment would be pushing Mitt Romney? It is to